And how do you measure your throughput?
> From: adelbout...@live.com
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with Qpid
> Java Broker 6.0.0
> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:38:12 +0200
>
> Hello Ulf,
>
> I am sending messages with a byte array of 100 bytes and I am using Berkley
> DB as a message store (which should be slower than having memory only message
> store, no?)
>
> With 1 consumer, 1 producer and no broker, I am at 33k msgs/sec if they are
> all on the same machine and I have set "jms.forceAsyncSend=true" on the
> producer and "jms.sendAcksAsync=true" for the consumer.
>
> Are you using other options to get 190k? Do you think JMS might be a
> bottleneck? Or something else in my config/test?
>
> JMS client 0.9.0
> Qpid Java Broker 6.0.1
> Dispatcher 0.6.0
>
> Adel
>
> > Subject: Re: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with
> > Qpid Java Broker 6.0.0
> > To: users@qpid.apache.org
> > From: l...@redhat.com
> > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:23:06 +0200
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Excuse me if this was already mentioned somewhere, but what is the size
> > of the messages you are sending ?
> >
> > FWIW, I'm able to get around 30-40k msgs/sec sustained with 1 producer,
> > 1 consumer, 1 dispatch (4 worker threads) and 1 broker (activemq-5). The
> > sender sends unsettled messages as fast as it can using qpid-proton
> > reactor API which is sending async up to the window limit.
> >
> > With no broker involved, I'm getting ~190k msgs/sec.
> >
> > All of these numbers are from my 8 core laptop. Message size is 128 bytes.
> >
> > I don't know the dispatcher that well, but I think it should be able to
> > handle data from each connector just fine given the numbers I have seen.
> >
> > On 08/03/2016 02:41 PM, Adel Boutros wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > As requested, I added a 2nd connector and the appropriate autoLinks on
> > > the same host/port but with a different name. It seems to have resolved
> > > the issue.
> > >
> > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 3 producers, 0 consumers, 1 connectors --> 5000
> > > msg/s.
> > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 3 producers, 0 consumers, 2 connectors --> 6600
> > > msg/s.
> > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 4 producers, 0 consumers, 2 connectors --> 7700
> > > msg/s.
> > >
> > > I think this confirms the problem is due to the fact a single connection
> > > is being shared by all clients (consumers/producers) and that having a
> > > sort of pool of connections or a connection per workerThread is a
> > > solution to consider.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > I added a 3rd connector to see if it changes anything but it
> > > didn't. Do you think this is maybe because the dispatcher is not able
> > > to process fast enough and saturate the 2 connectors?
> > > 1 Broker, 1 Dispatcher, 4 producers, 0 consumers, 3 connectors --> 7700
> > > msg/s.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Adel
> > >
> > >> From: adelbout...@live.com
> > >> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> > >> Subject: RE: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with
> > >> Qpid Java Broker 6.0.0
> > >> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:21:54 +0200
> > >>
> > >> Sorry for the typo. Indeed, it was with 3 producers. I used 4 and 8
> > >> workerThread but there wasn't a difference.
> > >> We want to benchmark in the worst case scenarios actually to see what is
> > >> the minimum we can guarantee. This is why we are using synchronous
> > >> sending. In the future, we will also benchmark with full SSL/SASL to see
> > >> what impact it has on the performance.
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Performance] Benchmarking Qpid dispatch router 0.6.0 with
> > >>> Qpid Java Broker 6.0.0
> > >>> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> > >>> From: g...@redhat.com
> > >>> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:41:54 +0100
> > >>>
> > >>> On 02/08/16 20:25, Adel Boutros wrote:
> > >>>> How about the tests we did with consumer/producers connected directly
> > >>>> to the dispatcher without any broker where we had 16 000 msg/s with 4
> > >>>> producers. Is it also a very low value given that there is no
> > >>>> persistence or storing here? It was also synchronous sending.
> > >>>
> > >>> The rate is low because it is synchronous. One messages is sent to the
> > >>> consumer who acknowledges it, the acknowledgement is then conveyed back
> > >>> to the sender who then can send the next message.
> > >>>
> > >>> The rate for a single producer through the router was 6,000 per second.
> > >>> That works out as a roundtrip time of 167 microsecs or so. In your
> > >>> table, the 16,000 rate was listed as being for 3 producers. Based on the
> > >>> rate of a single producer, the best you could hope for there is 3 *
> > >>> 6,000 i.e 18,000. (How many worker threads did you have on the router
> > >>> for that case?)
> > >>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ulf
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
> >
>
